Origins and End Times beliefs -- connected?

[Smidlee]

.

science: F=ma
Christian theology: this is my body.

I notice you used something outside of evolution (F=ma) for your example. Yet all you got to base "the little eyeball that could" stories is censensus.

 

[Smidlee]

the church age
saved in the trib


i am amazed at how easily people use club talk, a private language thinking in obvious that their audience understands it the same way they do, when in fact, statistically less than 1/3 of the modern American church* is dispensationalist, that the roots of the movement are not yet 200 years old.

In another words I'm referring to the "times of the gentiles" mention in scripture. Paul stated it clearly in Romans chapter 9-12 that God was turning to gentiles to be his witnesses (thus John 7 churches mention in Rev. was gentile churches) but once again turn back later to the nation Isreal. Romans 11:25 " For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Isreal, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in."

 

[rmwilliamsll]

I notice you used something outside of evolution (F=ma) for your example. Yet all you got to base "the little eyeball that could" stories is censensus.

i used examples that are extraordinarily foundational to each system of thought. the mechanism of the evolution of the eye (to TofE) is like super and infra lapsarianism( to theology). hardly a significant and important idea in either system, but just as certainly a element under discussion and debate.

the point is that science doesn't divide into competing and mutually antagonist groups with the discussion of the evolution of the eye*, where i know a prominent theologian and his son in law who divided and never talked to each other again over the issue of supra and infra lapsarianism.


*let's see how this would work out.
competing university biology depts would become known as multiple or single point eye route mutationists. There would be groups fighting in the streets over whether convergent or divergent evolution was more important. and we would have two popes of TofE excommunicating each other for heresies in whether neutral drift or sexual selection was most significant.

 

[Mallon]

I notice you used something outside of evolution (F=ma) for your example. Yet all you got to base "the little eyeball that could" stories is censensus.

Here's an equation that relates directly to evolution that every scientists agrees upon. It's called the Hardy-Weinberg equation:

p² + 2pq + q² = 1

where p is the frequency of one allele and q is the frequency of the other allele. p^2 is the population fraction that is homozygous for the p allele, 2pq is the frequency of heterozygotes and q^2 is the population fraction that is homozygous for the q allele.

Hope that suits your fancy. rmwilliamsll's point is a very incisive one.​

 

[Assyrian]

The Apostles wasn't told how long the church age was so of course "thing that are" was written to the 1st century churches. Yet the doesn't leave out these chapters was dealing with the church as a whole especially since seven represent the number of completeness.

Where does the bible say that seven is the number of completeness?

There is no doubt that the letters to the seven churches speak to every church, and in every age you will have churches that match every one of the seven churches in Asia Minor. The book is meant to be a blessing to everyone who reads it and we all can learn from the seven churches.

Rev 1:3 Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear, and who keep what is written in it, for the time is near.
Then he goes on.
Rev 1:4 John to the seven churches that are in Asia

The letters to the seven churches were literally to seven churches in Asia Minor at that time. We are even told that the letters refer to 'things which are' We are not told they referred to the future except for very specific warnings to very specific people. The book of Revelation is a book of prophecy, but we are told what must take place after this starts in chapter 4.

and I'll continue the verse ".....stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands." Of course there will be gentiles saved in the trib (by the 144,000 Jewish preachers) but it still doesn't mention the church. The are hints of the apostate church being around during the trib.

Is there any suggestion that the great multitude had been reached by the 144,000? Is there any mention of Israel doing all the work of preaching the gospel? We see the 144,000 again in Rev 14 but they are singing before the throne. Is there any reference to the church being raptured? No, just a steady stream of references to saints, brothers, servants and those to bear the testimony of Jesus.

If the seven lampstands in chapter 1 are the seven churches Rev 1:20, what are the two lampstands in Rev 11:4?

 

[jereth]

I find the poll result quite enlightening (though it would be nice if more YECs actually voted!).

What it strongly suggests is that YECism is not just a way of reading the Bible, it is some kind of socio-cultural-political phenomenon, or church sub-culture.

Perhaps it is somewhat futile to keep debating creationism in terms of Genesis and science. It is the underlying sub-culture that needs to be exposed and shown up as an aberration from historical christianity. I'm at a loss how to do this.

I find it ironic that people in "A" are viewed as the more orthodox ones while their beliefs are recent developments concurrent wih the rise of fundamentalism.

Are they really viewed as the more orthodox ones? In my country (Australia) you would generally be considered a bit of a nut if you were a pre-milennialist or tribulationist or dispensationalist. Most churchgoing people would never have even heard of dispensationalism in their lives. I've only learnt about it in the last couple of years. When I came across it my initial reaction was "what the h*** ?!?!?!"

rmwilliam's comments definitely resounded with my experience:

i am amazed at how easily people use club talk, a private language thinking in obvious that their audience understands it the same way they do, when in fact, statistically less than 1/3 of the modern American church* is dispensationalist, that the roots of the movement are not yet 200 years old.

are you even aware of how divisive dispensational type of theological analysis is?

assuming the correctness of this type of language shows how insular and divided the church really is.